evidence_update

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update a record,' with no details on whether it performs partial updates or full replacements, required permissions, error handling, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is too brief and lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections). While not verbose, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, earning a middle score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits key context such as whether updates are partial or full, error scenarios, or prerequisites (e.g., evidence existence). For a generic update tool, this lack of completeness could lead to misuse or confusion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (evidence, id, kod, data). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Given the high schema_description_coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate further.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update a record in any AbraFlexi evidence,' specifying the verb 'Update' and the resource 'record in any AbraFlexi evidence.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like contact_update or invoice_issued_update, which are for specific evidence types. However, it could be more explicit about its role as a generic fallback.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specific update siblings (e.g., contact_update, invoice_issued_update). It does not mention that for standard evidence types the specific tools are recommended, nor does it discuss prerequisites or alternatives. This lack of guidance hampers correct tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.